Indeed, I am rejecting determinism. — Pierre-Normand
What you're addressing in this passage is an epistemic issue. That's why you're conflating an epistemic and an ontological issue. Whether possibilities and free will obtain has nothing to do with our ability to explain anything, our understanding of physical laws, what physical laws can say about anything, etc. — Terrapin Station
Which means that you're not a compatibilist. — Terrapin Station
Causal explanations for sure address our explanatory needs, but to single then out for that reason doesn't turn them into merely epistemological issues. — Pierre-Normand
"Top down" and "bottom up" are nonsensical ontologically. They might make sense re how some people think about causal relations, but they'd have no correlate in the external world. — Terrapin Station
They are multitudes of correlates in the real world. You should keep up with recent literature on the philosophy of science, the philosophy of biology, the philosophy of chemistry and the philosophy of physics. ( — Pierre-Normand
What makes it an epistemological issue is that you're talking about explanations, understanding, what our physical laws can do, etc. — Terrapin Station
Aren't you the user Streetlight under a different name by the way?
That's because in the case of rational agency, our understanding of what we are intentionally doing is normally part of the cause of our doing it. — Pierre-Normand
It's not the case that it's not nonsense ontologically just because a lot of people are talking about it. — Terrapin Station
It's not that I'm stumping for "low level causality" as you seem to believe. The whole "level" idea is nonsense. It's simply an artifact of how people are choosing to think about this stuff.
This is like saying that the very idea of "rabbits" is nonsense. "Rabbits" just is an artifact of how biologists are choosing to think about lumps of biological stuff. — Pierre-Normand
Since everything is quanta, the above statement it's incorrect.an universe without any human beings or any living things, all events can be said to be strictly deterministic, is this not correct? — FreeEmotion
Indeed, I am rejecting determinism.
— Pierre-Normand
Which means that you're not a compatibilist. — Terrapin Station
Pierre-Normand may not be a compatibilist, but this doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that he's not a determinist.
Compatibilism is simply the view that free will is compatible with determinism. It does not entail the view that determinism is true (although some compatibilists may take the position that determinism is necessary for free will). — ChrisH
What is the importance of the free will debate, in your eyes? In mine it is one of responsibility- the metaphysics only interest me insofar as they inform the notion of responsibility. If responsibility is the main focal point, then one can be a compatibilist even if determinism is false because the free will the compatibilist is concerned with is one of responsibility, not metaphysics. — Chany
I wouldn't say that someone is a compatibilist unless they actually assert that both determinism and free will are the case. — Terrapin Station
Then I'm afraid you've misunderstood compatibilism. — ChrisH
From a compatibilist perspective, Anthony Kenny, Freewill and Responsibility, is a favorite of mine, and it is written in an engaging style. From an incompatibilist perspective, Michael Ayers, The Refutation of Determinism is hard to beat but it is both difficult and hard to find (though there might be cheap second hand copies available). You will easily find papers by Michael Smith or Kadri Vihvelin online. (See for instance Vihvelin, Free Will Demystified: A Dispositional Account). Erasmus Mayr's Understanding Human Agency is excellent but not cheap. Also quite relevant, and excellent, are two papers by Don Levi: Determinism as a Thesis about the State of the World from Moment to Moment and The Trouble with Harry (this last one is available online and is especially relevant to the principle of alternative possibilities). — Pierre-Normand
Also, there is no need to imagine a universe without humans - take a location far away from the earth, even beyond the distance light could travel from the times humans appeared - isn't this area purely mechanical in its operation? Yes, but I then rule out quantum mechanics — FreeEmotion
What ever is outside of observation is simply unknown an inaccessible.
What I meant was that there it was not necessary to imagine a universe devoid of humans but we could do with imagining (hypothizing?) a part of the universe outside the scope of human influence. — FreeEmotion
You could try to imagine such a situation but it is your consciousness that is doing so. One cannot disentangle consciousness from any discussion or exploration-either philosophically or scientifically. A thought experiment is an experiment of the mind (consciousness). — Rich
For me, there is no such thing as free will. What is possible (and this is reflected in everyday life) is to make a directed (willful) choice in a particular direction. Outcome is never certain (though probabilistic) and is completely unknown until it unfolds in psychological time (the time of life). We try and we then observe what happened in memory. — Rich
free will
n
1. (Philosophy)
a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
b. the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory. Compare determinism1
c. (as modifier): a free-will decision.
2. the ability to make a choice without coercion: he left of his own free will: I did not influence him.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
Our understanding is irrelevant to whether possibilities or free will obtain.
And our understanding of what we are intentionally doing can be part of the cause of what we are doing where either (a) only one possibility exists in any given situation and there is no free will, or (b) at least two possibilities exist in at least some situations and there is free will. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.